If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I agree it's a very fine line and perhaps you are right that there is no real difference between a bigot and somebody who ignores bigotry. Is supporting or voting for a bigot an act of bigotry? Would that also apply to people who remain close to family or friends who voted for a bigot? I should think about that one, I've no answer right now. What I can say is that this is a technical discussion for me, might be the curse of the philosophy student. I do not in any way feel bad for people who are confronted with this side of their support for Trump, I just wish there was more attention for this aspect of supporting Trump before everybody voted.

It's at the very fiber of my being to just pick up the argument and run with it, but I can tell when there's nothing to come of it from recrimination. In short, yeah, Mogs, I disagree with the underlying assumptions of a lot of what you find especially upsetting about Trump but moreover about those who voted for him. I don't, however, think it's worth salting the earth trying to convince you, since I won't, or throw up a wall of equivalencies between the two options or why I actually think Hillary is the more ignoble person of the two in general. It is what it is. Take some time, at least, before painting the entire voting electorate for Trump with a definite brush that, overall, several million of these inveterate bigots are one- or two-term Obama voters, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida, and that there is a Rubik's Cube to be solved before they can be written off as, y'know, hating black people at the very least, and at most might mean that Obama must have had a lot of appeal to... people who hate women? And homosexuals?

To Nina's post, I'd ask to consider -- if we concede that there are these two categories amongst the people (bigots, and somebody who ignores bigotry), is it not logical that there are also people who see it where it isn't? If there is a false negative condition (can't see bigotry when it's there), mustn't there also be a false positive (people who see it when it isn't)?

As for the protests going on around the country, I'm not big on my country burning to the ground, because "my country" is the sum of the individual lives within it. People who are going to have to replace windows and repaint buildings and fix damaged cars don't deserve all this. Logically even less so in Portland or in NYC or in California where there's probably a 1/10 chance of even finding a Trump Voter as the person to punish through such wanton destruction. And I take some reassurance in the much more isolated, and therefore easy to investigate, instances where people might be bullied or harassed by alt-right bottom feeders, at least there is a puncher's chance those people can face prosecution or litigation; the masked members of anonymous mobs rarely ever do. Yeah, I'm pretty disgusted when I see people tape up "whites only" and "colored only" signs by school water fountains, but also know that it's a lot easier to find punish someone who did it to legitimately intimidate (or did it to make a "witty" political comment). The most disturbing incident I've personally read about out of this whole post-election mishigas has been this video of a Texas woman kicking her ~8 year old son out of her home for having apparently "voted" for Trump in a mock election in elementary school (which are obviously not done to express actual political ideals but just to show kids how elections work). She is under investigation, thankfully, and apparently her defense is that she was "joking", but obviously the boy isn't "in on it". It's one of the most "unifying" things I've seen this week, though, since happily I've yet to even hear of anyone who can rationalize it, no matter how angry they are at the outcome. Seriously, if you watch it, NSFW and disturbing.

Think better of me, and us, I beg -- I don't think whatever the worst assumptions the election might lead anyone want to make of me could hold up to scrutiny based on my appreciation, even devotion, to the Buffyverse, for instance. My two best friends on this planet, 20 years plus, and both my sisters, all curve so far to the left you could run NASCAR events on them, and they all had to make the call -- is he an awful person and I just didn't know this whole time? Or are there actually lenses to see this election through other than lumping everybody voting the other way in as an amalgam of bigoted priorities? But I'm not the special outlying case, just my own version of what is probably several million of the same scenarios post-election. Hope people don't make the call to ruin their relationships over an election that actually had fewer major policy distinctions than most in recent or distant memory.

* A filibuster allows a single US Senator to block or delay legislative action and to block or delay US Government appointments.

The main problem with the filibuster is that the US Senate is not representative of the electorate because every State has exactly 2 US Senators no matter the varying populations of the States. The Electoral College numbers for the States is based on the total number of US Senators and US House of Representatives each State has, which means bigger States are much less represented in the Electoral College than small States are.

* There was a considerable increase in hate crimes immediately after the election and that is horrible and unfortunate. And it’s horrible and unfortunate that many hate groups now feel empowered and emboldened.

* A considerable portion of liberals seem to focus on poor blacks and poor Hispanics and largely ignore or dismiss poor Whites and poor Asians. A significant number of liberals want everyone to be supremely tolerate of Muslims to the point of wanting to normalize burkas and downplaying the problems Europe is having by bringing in so many Muslim refugees.

________________________________________________

* A far fewer amount of Democrats vote in Mid-Terms elections than the amount of Republicans. This is simply because Republicans are more loyal to the party than Democrats are.

Many Democrats didn’t vote in 2010 C.E. simply because President Obama wasn’t ‘liberal enough’. And liberal Democrats are the reason President Obama decided to not support Super-Pacs. That directly led to the 2010 C.E. victories for the Republicans and the massively gerrymandered Congressional districts that massively favor Republicans.

Literally millions of US Senator Bernie Sanders supporters didn’t vote in the 2016 Elections simply because he wasn’t the Democratic nominee. A considerable number of people voted for Gary Jonson simply because they didn’t want to vote for Hilary Clinton.

* The United States continues to not have actual Universal Health Care, it’s the most religious ‘first world Country’, still hasn’t elected a female Head of State, and clearly needs a Voters Rights Act.

Hilary Clinton is simply an extremely flawed candidate. Essentially the only reason she got to have political power is because she’s the wife of William Jefferson Clinton. The email thing is actually a big issue. Samantha Bee was actually arrogant enough to do a segment on Hilary Clinton being so technologically inept that Hilary doesn’t even know how to print web pages. Hilary’s pick for Vice President clearly showed her extreme lack of confidence and her extreme weakness as a leader—she chose someone whom no one would possibly consider more inspiring or more of a leader. The NY Times did articles on how her Cabinet would essentially be full of ‘yes-men’ and relative no-names.

________________________________________________

* Donald Trump doesn’t hate women.

KingofCretins

* How is Hilary Clinton possibly “utterly loathsome”?

Speaking from America, we're not actually getting much huddling in our homes to avoid the danger -- unless of course you are a resident or small business owner in for example Portland, that is.

You’re supposedly a White male lawyer living in Florida? What personal experience do you have with racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.?

Yes, it is pointless and useless to riot in places where Hilary Clinton won considerable margins. But that doesn’t discount the new threats posed for minorities.

* Someone who wants to re-instate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and who wants a US Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is homophobic.

Someone who wants to defund Planned Parenthood and who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade is misogynistic.

Someone who doesn’t want to do anything about Global Warming doesn’t care about the future of human civilization on Earth.

* The problem with ‘the Center’ is what the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ are. This is why there have been so many false equivalencies in recent years—the Right has gone so far to the Right that there is no actual ‘Center’ in the debate.

* US President-elect Donald Trump is promising lower taxes and higher spending; consequently, the stock market is currently up. We’ll see what happens when the US Federal Reserve finally significantly raises interest rates.

* The US is the most powerful country in the world. I don’t think any reasonable people thought any non-royal dictator world leaders would have the gall to try to shun the US President-elect.

________________________________________________

* US President Barack Obama is hoping that US President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t dismantle Obama’s legacy. Hilary Clinton is probably hoping to be able to run again or be able to have Chelsea run for office. That is the reason they are ‘supporting’ Trump.

But I also remember very clearly that Mitt Romney -- the most boring and innocuous man in the history of politics honestly -- was also the most racist bigoted monster to ever run for the Presidency,

That never happened. Mitt Romney lost because people found out what private equity does, he lost because of that 47% thing, he lost because he chose US Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate, and he lost because US President Barack Obama was doing a relatively decent job as US President.

One caveat about this whole thing from a political philosophy standpoint -- it's a lot easier, a lot easier, to reconcile voting for a questionable person as President when you think the most important part of government is to limit the amount of power that person can have on you.

That is beyond laughable. Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, it has been clear that he would prefer the US be a monarchy with him as monarch. It’s clear that he would favor Ivanka Trump as the next monarch and he clearly likes her husband to the point that he wants that husband as a major part of the Trump Administration.

Do you actually think Donald Trump wants the Executive Branch to have less power than it did under Bush II’s Administration and less power than it has under the Obama Administration? Trump is having his children run his business empire and his children are key members of the transition team. Ivanka was in the meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister.

_________________________________________________

* The simple fact is that a very small percentage of the US population is rational, intelligent, educated, informed, and knowledgeable.

If you live on the coast in Florida, it is clearly irrational for you to vote for someone who said Global Warming is something made up by the Chinese. Actually, simply living in Florida it is clearly irrational for you to vote for Trump.

Last edited by MikeB; 24-11-16 at 04:16 PM.
Reason: included links on the filibuster

The main problem with the filibuster is that the US Senate is not representative of the electorate because every State has exactly 2 US Senators no matter the varying populations of the States. The Electoral College numbers for the States is based on the total number of US Senators and US House of Representatives each State has, which means bigger States are much less represented in the Electoral College than small States are.

That isn't a bug of the Senate, that's a feature. That's it's purpose, to provide equal representation in a chamber of the legislature for the equal and independent sovereignties that form the Union. If anything has confused people about the Senate, it's the 17th Amendment, which honestly has had it's day and I support repealing. The Senators are there to represent that state governments the way an ambassador to another nation does; let the state governments choose them by whatever means they see fit, as was originally stated in Article I.

A far fewer amount of Democrats vote in Mid-Terms elections than the amount of Republicans. This is simply because Republicans are more loyal to the party than Democrats are.

Inveterate history of personal and public corruption, from foreclosure scam at the Rose Law Firm up to selling US foreign policy for donations to a charity that's primary activity is supporting the lifestyle of its officers. I haven't a very good thing to say about her at all other than probably her grandkid adores her. There are probably a half dozen other liberal women (with whom I make no common ground politically on almost any subject), let alone conservative or libertarian women, that would have been more personally deserving of the historical distinction of being the first female President, and I am very grateful for the sake of my nieces that that distinction won't have been thrown away with both hands.

You’re supposedly a White male lawyer living in Florida?

I'm "supposedly"?

* Someone who wants to re-instate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and who wants a US Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is homophobic.

Oh piffle. Trump ran with almost total indifference to gay marriage as a political matter and said both before and after the election that Obergefell is of no concern to him in preparing SCOTUS nominations.

* US President-elect Donald Trump is promising lower taxes and higher spending; consequently, the stock market is currently up. We’ll see what happens when the US Federal Reserve finally significantly raises interest rates.

The Federal Reserve started and continues to hold interest down to reduce the impact of the current administration's desire to monetize our debt -- because when all the borrowing is from the Fed, the Fed interest rate determines how big our interest only payments on the debt have to be. On economic policy, I considered and still consider our general election to have basically been a second take at the Democrat primary, with Trump having been the sort of Democrat he probably remembers from when he was a young man, in the Kennedy era (also a tax-cutter who would probably be deemed a right wing world-hater if he showed up today as a Democrat named Smith).

* US President Barack Obama is hoping that US President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t dismantle Obama’s legacy. Hilary Clinton is probably hoping to be able to run again or be able to have Chelsea run for office. That is the reason they are ‘supporting’ Trump.

That never happened. Mitt Romney lost because people found out what private equity does, he lost because of that 47% thing, he lost because he chose US Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate, and he lost because US President Barack Obama was doing a relatively decent job as US President.

If you don't remember the demonization of Romney as all the same ____ist and ____phobe, you're either lying to me or more likely just to yourself. He had much less material to work with, admittedly, having not led nearly so "colorful" a public life as Trump, but him having had "binders full of women" (for the sole purpose of making sure he hired more of them!) was turned into him somehow having been a misogynist, it was clear rationality had left the building. There is zero question that Marco Rubio or John Kasich would also have been branded and campaigned against as being racist, misogynist, homophobic, because those are the first three pages of the playbook, simple as that.

That is beyond laughable. Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, it has been clear that he would prefer the US be a monarchy with him as monarch. It’s clear that he would favor Ivanka Trump as the next monarch and he clearly likes her husband to the point that he wants that husband as a major part of the Trump Administration.

There is no evidence for this on the ground, of course. One of the reasons it was so easy for him to gain the nomination, and later to win the election, was the anti-dynastic sentiment of the public against the Bushes and Clintons. He broke up two faux-monarchies. I will be on guard for some sign of autocratic tendency as I am with all Presidents, that's my job as a citizen, but if he contains his pen-and-phone actions to undoing prior pen-and-phone actions, it is very well.

The simple fact is that a very small percentage of the US population is rational, intelligent, educated, informed, and knowledgeable.

And that's why folk should vote your way in elections, right? Because of your deep and abiding respect and compassion for them.

* I noticed you didn’t respond to my Florida statement. It is simply irrational for anyone who can be affected by global warming to have voted for Donald Trump.

[Hilary Clinton] selling US foreign policy for donations to a charity that's primary activity is supporting the lifestyle of its officers.

Um…

* It seems you don’t care about fair and equal representation in government. You even quote my noting that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2 million people. Instead, you say that the 17th Amendment should be ‘overturned’.

* You somehow say that John Fitzgerald Kennedy would be considered a right-winger nowadays.

* Being against gay marriage, being against Planned Parenthood, being against abortion—these are real positions and have consequence. John Kasich only seemed reasonable in comparison and because most didn’t know his actual record. In ways, he’s more ‘right-wing’ than GWB.

It seems you don’t care about fair and equal representation in government. You even quote my noting that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2 million people. Instead, you say that the 17th Amendment should be ‘overturned’.

I'll happily school you on what you don't understand about the American system of government, you need only ask. First in your misconceptions is the false belief that we have "national" elections at all, or a national democracy. We don't, we never have, and likely never will. And, yes, every American voter's vote counts the same as every other's; every Californian that votes in the state election of the state's electors counts the same as every other Californian's. Every Michigander's vote in the state election of the state's electors counts the same as every other Michigander's. And every New Yorkers, every Virginian, every Oregonian, etc. They are not taking part in the same election, they are all taking part in state-specific, state-exclusive elections to choose who that state shall send to the electoral college.

What's more, even that is not required by any provision of the Constitution -- Article II gives the states the discretion to choose how their electors are determined, that they all let the citizens vote on it is sheer happenstance. It's politically expedient, but to be absolutely sure you understand how our system is actually designed, if, say, Florida decided that they would change their law for 2020 and let the state legislature choose the state's electors themselves in a special session, that would be perfectly constitutional. So what would all the counting of state election totals into a faux-national election total count be worth, if one or more states weren't even having the people vote on the question at all?

The reason I brought up the 17th Amendment, and have before, is because the direct election of Senators for these hundred or so years have helped lead to your incorrect understanding of our system of government, and particularly the seriousness of state sovereignty and equality before the law. That's why we have two houses of Congress, after all, and Congress is the express template upon which the electoral college is built. Another point I use to instruct people on this is that the electoral college really is Congress electing the President, that that's what the Framers would have preferred, is a joint session of Congress just electing the President the way a Parliament might choose a Prime Minister, but since the role of the President is different and include the duty to be a check on the legislature, it couldn't be the actual Congress doing that or they'd control the executive. So they invented the electoral college to be that single-purpose, ad hoc Congress to do that one specific job. And at no point in that is it ever required or presumed that individual citizens would get a say in it directly at all.

You somehow say that John Fitzgerald Kennedy would be considered a right-winger nowadays.

Sure -- he proposed and saw to fruition tax cuts on both individuals and businesses on the expectation (correct, of course, since that is after all how it works) that it would stimulate economic growth. That would get your card pulled these days running as a Democrat.

Being against gay marriage, being against Planned Parenthood, being against abortion—these are real positions and have consequence. John Kasich only seemed reasonable in comparison and because most didn’t know his actual record. In ways, he’s more ‘right-wing’ than GWB.

You are welcome to feel that way, but honestly, I don't think any reasonable person analyzing the results could still think Kasich or Rubio would have won, or certainly not won more easily. Either of those men very well could have taken Nevada out from under Clinton... and would have lost Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the election. Only Nixon can go to China; only Trump can bulldoze the "Blue Wall", apparently. That Trump, personally, projected a pretty clear indifference to gay marriage speaks louder than the platform because, ultimately, the candidate of a party sets the party's true agenda, especially when they win. If he's true to his word, he'll pick originalist justices who will assure that, for instance, Heller isn't overturned or obscured into irrelevance, but Obergefell is not something he has any professed interest in bothering with.

* Now it seems you wouldn’t mind if the voting age population of the United States didn’t even have a direct say in who the electors to the Electoral College would be.

* Our system of Government states that voters vote for their United States Senators.

Your picking and choosing which Amendments you want to ‘repeal’ is beyond self-serving. Some super ‘conservatives’ would also like the 19th Amendment ‘repealed’ simply because women are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate.

And if we didn’t have the 22 Amendment, either William Jefferson Clinton would probably still be President of the United States or Barack Hussein Obama would certainly have won a 3 term.

The United States of America would be much better off had George Walker Bush never been President and had President Obama getting a 3rd term.

I'll happily school you on what you don't understand about the American system of government,

It doesn’t seem you’ve read the Federalist Papers. The Electoral College was created, designed, and intended specifically so that someone like Donald Trump could never be President of the United States. If the Electoral College does its job as it was intended to do, it would elect Hilary Clinton as President of the United States.

And, yes, every American voter's vote counts the same as every other's;

That’s simply mathematically incorrect.

* We have 2 houses of the United States Congress mostly to try to limit the power of the slave-holding States.

the electoral college really is Congress electing the President,

That if factually incorrect. It seems you’ve never heard—or simply want to ignore—the reality of ‘splitting the ticket’.

that that's what the Framers would have preferred,

The Framers pretty much wanted only wealthy educated (i.e. intelligent) white landowners to be able to vote. The white working class (i.e. uneducated and largely unintelligent) elected Trump.

* It seems you don’t know—or want to ignore—what the tax rate was during United States President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Administration. I’d like to know from where you get your information and opinions.

* You’re doing a straw man argument. I’ve always said of the Republican Presidential candidates that I preferred Donald Trump and that among them Trump had the best chance of winning the Presidential election.

No ‘originalist’ United States Supreme Court Justice would support the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. That would be overturned and the Citizens United vs. FEC decision would be overturned.

Moreover, President Obama would get to be his pick on the United States Supreme Court.

You also don’t seem to mind that the Republicans in the United States Senate are violating their United States Constitutional duties by refusing to ‘advise and consent’.

* Finally, you don’t address how global warming is going to particularly affect Florida and Florida’s economy. You probably also don’t mind if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

* Now it seems you wouldn’t mind if the voting age population of the United States didn’t even have a direct say in who the electors to the Electoral College would be.

The Constitution doesn't mind; the Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how they choose electors. That is also, to your next point, what it originally said on the subject of Senators.

* Our system of Government states that voters vote for their United States Senators.

... for about a hundred years, yes. This was mandated by the 17th Amendment, and it was not done out of a spirit of popular voting, but rather intended as a check against graft, i.e. Governors or state legislatures selling Senate seats or using them as favors. It's effectiveness at that goal has been... middling. Collaterally, it's also made the electoral college harder to understand for people not immersed in history or civics, since they've lost the sense of the state governments having direct representation in the federal government.

It doesn’t seem you’ve read the Federalist Papers. The Electoral College was created, designed, and intended specifically so that someone like Donald Trump could never be President of the United States. If the Electoral College does its job as it was intended to do, it would elect Hilary Clinton as President of the United States.

To be blunt, I've forgotten more of the Federalist papers than you'd know if you had them open in front of you. You are referencing one discussion by Hamilton of a utility of the electoral college, not of its sole and exclusive purpose. I spoke of why it was designed the way it is, why it's membership adds up mirror a joint session of Congress, is because that was considered the brilliant design of equitable representation of the states and people of the new nation in its federal legislature. And what's more, at the end of the day, Hamilton's view was not that a campaign of death threats and harassment would let the side that lost an election convince the electors to overturn it for them.

It's a pointless diversion to even indulge the delusion that Hillary Clinton will be getting 270 votes on Monday when 306 of the electors are career GOP partisans and/or personal Trump loyalists.

That’s simply mathematically incorrect.

No, you just didn't read the post or understand it. All Floridians votes count the same as all other Floridians. All Californians votes count the same as all other Californians. They are not taking part in the same election, so it doesn't matter a syphilitic tit if they "count the same" in each other's election. Each state has it's own, exclusive election for the sole purpose of choosing that state's electors. There is no singular "national" election, so the assertion that every Arizonans vote counts differently than every Minnesotans in a fictional event isn't of any importance to anyone, legally or factually.

* It seems you don’t know—or want to ignore—what the tax rate was during United States President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Administration. I’d like to know from where you get your information and opinions.

I do. I also know that the effective tax rate was not much higher, although somewhat, than Peak Clinton or Peak Obama, because (what you don't know, which is no small list) is how many more exclusions and deductions existed in the tax code when that top marginal rate was so high.

No ‘originalist’ United States Supreme Court Justice would support the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. That would be overturned and the Citizens United vs. FEC decision would be overturned.

Than you don't understand originalism, or jurisprudence, or either. Comes to the same thing.

You also don’t seem to mind that the Republicans in the United States Senate are violating their United States Constitutional duties by refusing to ‘advise and consent’.

The Constitution does not place an affirmative duty or timetable for either of those things.

Before it would be reasonable to respond to your previous post, you need to address this: "Finally, you don’t address how global warming is going to particularly affect Florida and Florida’s economy. You probably also don’t mind if Roe vs. Wade is overturned."

Again, I live in Los Angeles County, California. Liberals, progressives, and moderates are going to legally fight the Trump Administration. President-elect Trump lost the popular vote by around 3 million (and that doesn't include all the protest votes). The Republicans are not going to want to risk another recession.

President-elect Donald Trump is currently trying to lower costs for the F-35 fighter jet program and he is trying to lower costs for the new Air Force One planes.

He's possibly going to get some much-needed infrastructure done in the United States.

He's trying to keep China in check.

He's actually possibly going to keep Russia in check.

He's probably going to greatly lessen the power of the Middle East and Muslim countries in general.

Global warming and abortion rights are still a major concern. But we'll see how that goes. Oh, and the United States national debt given Trump's tax plans.

Currently, the United States Congress and specifically Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Paul Ryan is the bigger issue. He wants to essentially dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.